Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Another 49er in trouble

Originally Posted by JAB1985

I think he meant passively by doing their job and keeping the law breakers/psychos at bay... at least as much as one can.

did you read that story? how did they not have reason to arrest him when he kidnapped their children by breaking a restraining order that specifically stated an arrest should be issued? Whats the point of a restraining order if they cant legally enforce it?

I'm very familiar with the case and the article isn't doing the the case justice.

What the court is saying is the police have a responsibility to everyone. Not just an individual with a court order. The police had no way of knowing the husband would loose his marbles and kill his children, thus cannot be held liable for their deaths.

There are a dozen or so similar cases ruled by SCOTUS that the police are not responsible for the well being of an individual.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Another 49er in trouble

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I'm very familiar with the case and the article isn't doing the the case justice.

What the court is saying is the police have a responsibility to everyone. Not just an individual with a court order. The police had no way of knowing the husband would loose his marbles and kill his children, thus cannot be held liable for their deaths.

There are a dozen or so similar cases ruled by SCOTUS that the police are not responsible for the well being of an individual.

liability is one thing, I dont think they can predict someone to go nuts so they cant be to blame in that sense, but they still could (should) have issued a warrant no?

I meant that them being efficient and effective at their job duties generally directly benefits your well being. In the case of the TSA agents, I'd rather be polite and do what is asked of me, so that they have more time to root out someone who is trying to bring harm to people or an airplane.

Now, then you could cross into an argument of "Is it someone's responsibility to call out a TSA agent if they seem to be doing a poor job, thus putting your own safety in potential jeopardy, enabling your responsibility for keeping yourself alive?" But that'd be getting WAYYYYY off topic

.
.
“When I think of a Baltimore Raven - we go in there, we take your lunch box, we take your sandwich, we take your juice box, we take your applesauce, and we take your spork and we break it. And we leave you with an empty lunch. That’s the Baltimore Raven way.” - Steve Smith Sr.

Re: Another 49er in trouble

There are signs and, in some airports, recorded messages saying that even joking about a bomb will get you locked up.

I've traveled through LAX dozens of times and you'd have to be an idiot to miss the signs.

Smith would only read those signs, if they had a picture of a football on them. SMH No football or booze and he's not interested. LOL Hope he pays heavily for pissing off the TSA. Maybe make him catch a train or bus next time.

Re: Another 49er in trouble

liability is one thing, I dont think they can predict someone to go nuts so they cant be to blame in that sense, but they still could (should) have issued a warrant no?

not trying to hijack, just intrigued by the actions or lack there of.

Liability is everything in this case, not one thing. They sued in civil court.

The police have a duty to protect the welfare of the community. Thus, they have discretion as to what calls, and in what order, they answer. The family of Gonzalez felt they had a duty to stop everything they were doing and find the husband. And what would they issue the warrant on? The police didn't see anything and they cannot issue a warrant based off the word of someone else. If that were the case, any person could walk up to a cop, make some shit up and get a warrant for their arrest.

This may be worth moving to the OT area. Perhaps Wicked can make that happen.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

Re: Another 49er in trouble

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Liability is everything in this case, not one thing. They sued in civil court.

The police have a duty to protect the welfare of the community. Thus, they have discretion as to what calls, and in what order, they answer. The family of Gonzalez felt they had a duty to stop everything they were doing and find the husband. And what would they issue the warrant on? The police didn't see anything and they cannot issue a warrant based off the word of someone else. If that were the case, any person could walk up to a cop, make some shit up and get a warrant for their arrest.

This may be worth moving to the OT area. Perhaps Wicked can make that happen.

civil case I guess it is everything. I guess im saying theres a difference in critiquing the police for not following through with the protective order that he broke, by grabbing the kids off the property, or the fact that he kidnapped them to begin with, which is usually not taken lightly vs being responsible for their deaths directly. I dont see them responsible, but i do think they could have done something. Not knowing the particulars if they had more pressing things to attend to than so be it. I do think child abduction cases are usually exceptions to that but maybe there is a time missing prerequisite to even issue such.

Re: Another 49er in trouble

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I'm very familiar with the case and the article isn't doing the the case justice.

What the court is saying is the police have a responsibility to everyone. Not just an individual with a court order. The police had no way of knowing the husband would loose his marbles and kill his children, thus cannot be held liable for their deaths.

There are a dozen or so similar cases ruled by SCOTUS that the police are not responsible for the well being of an individual.

The job of the police is to protect the community, not any particular individual. They aren't liable if they failed to protect an individual.

I'm not going to leap to judgement on what happened between Smith and the TSA officer, since nothing I've seen provides the context of what happened. Smart or not, Smith's comment could have been a reaction to rudeness on the part of the TSA, for instance. Or he could just be an ass.